Room for Improvement in Pretrial Decisionmaking - The Development of Judicial Bail Guidelines in Philadelphia (From Dealing With Dangerous Offenders, Volume 2, 1983, by Daniel McGillis et al - See NCJ-92277)

• NCJ Number: 92282
• Author(s): J S Goldkamp
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 32 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche as NCJ-92277

Annotation

Following a discussion of the 'danger' focus and other problems with bail as well as the contributions of bail reform, this paper describes research conducted in Philadelphia in the last several years that resulted in the development of and experimentation with bail guidelines.

Abstract

The Philadelphia research conducted by the Bail Decisionmaking Project dealt with one basic issue: given the years of reform, could pretrial decisionmaking be substantially improved. The approach was to focus on the decisionmakers and to view the bail and detention process from a number of issue perspectives. The prediction of and response to defendant 'danger' was clearly one of the issues requiring investigation. The project was approached in three phases: (1) a descriptive phase during which bail decisions and their consequences were studied, (2) a prescriptive phase in which alternative conceptualizations of guidelines were developed empirically, and (3) an experimental phase during which the effects of decisionmaking using one of the guideline models were contrasted with traditional decisionmaking. Currently, the project is nearing completion of the third phase. Preliminary findings indicate that progress on a number of fronts can be achieved through bail guidelines. The controversy about the goals of bail can be addressed openly (the Philadelphia judges incorporated a dimension predicting risk of flight as well as risk of crime after study and lengthy debate). Further, the criteria for evaluating defendants can be articulated and built into a simple decision framework that is explicit, and the consequences of bail decisions can be examined (judges can learn how often defendants within given categories are released or detained, and when released, how well they perform). Finally, the guidelines can be changed to accommodate lessons from empirical study or objections based on policy concerns. This study also identifies the questions that must be addressed as guidelines implementation continues in Philadelphia. Twenty-five notes and thirty references are provided.